Why yes, yes President Donald Trump will easily be able to axe the Paris climate agreement. This follows up with the climate post this morning about commitments
(Jo Nova)  The UNFCCC were trying a weak bluff last week that Trump “would not derail Parisâ€. Turnbull rushed to sell Australia out to the Paris deal on Nov 10th for no purpose at all even after the US election guarantees two of the largest economies in the world will not be committed to carbon reduction, all of which was obvious from November 9th, 2016. (China — the other “largest†economy has promised to do nothing.)
In a letter to John Kerry on November 3rd, fourteen US senators explained that Obama’s commitment to the Paris deal is the legal equivalent of him giving a speech — the “lowest forms of commitment the United States can make…â€. It’s worthless. The Senators explained that everyone knows the Paris deal was done to avoid going through Congress (it’s printed in The Guardian) because Congress would never approve it.
Here’s part of the letter sent
And there’s this
When you read the whole thing in full, putting it all in context, you come away with the concrete idea that both the Paris climate agreement, along with Obama Clean Power Plan, which was mentioned, are both about to be burnt toast. Done. Gone. Outa here. Eliminated.
As I see it being nothing but empty, unenforceable talk Obama managed to convince his small minded minions he was the Big Bad Climate President. Surprise suckers, he has done nothing. Hahahahaha.
If the incoming President really wants to torpedo his successor, in 2021 or 2025, from shenanigans, he will call it a treaty, and submit the agreement President Obama signed to the Senate for a ratification vote; Senate ratification of treaties requires a 2/3 supermajority, and calling it a treaty prevents a renegade Republican from joining with the Democrats to pass it.
Incoming President Trump — in case anyone hadn’t noticed, I absolutely despise the title “President-elect’ — could then set a precedent: these things must be approved by Congress, to
preventput pressure on his successor to do things the right way.We have had a lot of Presidents sign treaties and other agreements, and then decline to submit them to the Senate for ratification — SALT II and the Kyoto Accords being obvious examples — and that needs to be nipped in the bud.
When President Carter signed the Panama Canal Treaty, it had a lot of opposition, but he did it the right way: he signed the treaty, submitted it to the Senate for ratification, and lobbied hard for passage, and he got it done.
You’re right, Dana, it would probably be a better method. Plus, it would put Democrats on the hook for wanting to give away more American sovereignty and taxpayer money to the “International Community.”